Filed under: Ethanol, Legislation and Policy, USA
Texas denied reduced ethanol requirements by EPA
Texas Governor Rick Perry had requested that the EPA revise its Renewable Fuels Standard requirement to lessen the amount of ethanol for use in automobiles. Between September 1 of this year till August 31 of 2009, the EPA has mandated that 9 billion gallons of ethanol be blended into gasoline, a number which Perry wanted to see cut in half. In the United States, the vast majority of the available ethanol is produced from corn, a process which has drawn more than its fair share of criticism from many parties due to its inefficiencies and its possible impact on food prices. The EPA, though, denied Perry's request.Perry responded to the decision this way, "I am greatly disappointed with the EPA's inability to look past the good intentions of this policy to see the significant harm it is doing to farmers, ranchers and American households. For the EPA to assert that this federal mandate is not affecting food prices not only goes against common sense, but every American's grocery bill." We don't imagine this is the last we'll hear from ethanol opponents regarding the issue. Thanks for the tip, Razpez!
[Source: AP via Google News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Brent 11:21AM (8/08/2008)
Ethanol might be harming his oil buddies, but it definitely isn't harming farmers with crops. Cellulosic is here!
Reply
Gabe 12:55PM (8/08/2008)
Actually it's the corn prices that are harming Texas's beef ranchers.
I don't think anyone asserted that using corn for fuel hurt farmers: as demand for their corn goes up so do the prices they can charge. The farmers will do fine - it's all the ranchers buying feed and the tortilla makers and grocery buyers that suffer it out.
At least that is this Texan's POV.
Joce03 8:57PM (8/08/2008)
No matter what his intention is (or who his buddies are, although you're probably right about "oil buddies"), making fuel from food is ridiculous in so many ways. And, the fact that the EPA is mandating this, to me, shows a lack of responsibility and education on their part.
ER 12:01PM (8/08/2008)
The EPA decision was a reasonable one. In all of the brouhaha over US ethanol production, one important point is being overlooked. Ethanol is replacing oil. Without US ethanol production we would be importing much more oil, especially from the Middle East, and burning it in our cars. There are trade-offs no matter what energy source we use. It is interesting to note the recent protest by a local Sierra Club in Virginia against building wind turbines in the Shenendoah Mountains. Wind turbines need to be built where the wind blows the strongest, otherwise it doesn't make much sense. Similarly, producing cleaner energy here at home makes much more sense than importing it from countries that are not always friends.
Reply
BoomBoom 3:14PM (8/08/2008)
That would be true if corn derived ethanol didn't use 70-90% of the fossil fuel to create it as it saves by using it. Reducing our oil consumption with ethanol is a good idea, but if that ethanol comes from corn (which is currently does) it is self defeating. It is only there because it makes ethanol producers and corn farmers money and they had clever lobbyists.
Joce03 9:01PM (8/08/2008)
I agree that there will always be trade-offs when it comes to alternative sources of energy. But those trade-offs should never include access to food!
Snark 12:51PM (8/08/2008)
"Without US ethanol production we would be importing much more oil, especially from the Middle East, and burning it in our cars."
I'd rather enrich an oil sheik than impoverish the good agricultural soil we depend on for necessities more important than vehicular fuel.
Reply
dukey-dong 12:55PM (8/08/2008)
ER apparently you are not aware that the actual return of energy producing ethanol is close to 0%. The corn ethanol mandate is a boondoggle until cellulosic comes on line in the near future. Bottom line it is not replacing much oil importation, it is only costing you and I tax dollars at this point. Decreasing the mandate for part of 2009 would only save us some tax money and break even on oil.
Reply
Joce03 9:03PM (8/08/2008)
Am I correct is saying that boondoggle can loosely be translated to clusterf#$k?
Craig 2:03PM (8/08/2008)
Ethanol is energy negative!!! You must be drinking it if you don't know that. It takes lots of energy(and water) to grow, process, and transport(more than you get back). This is all political(Iowa's importance in elections) and is causing starvation and food inflation in poor countries(and ours). This is eco-do-gooding that is doing more harm than good. The only argument for it is that it is creating infra for cellulosic, but corn ethanol is a hoax and a bribe to farmers otherwise. Do some research, don't just listen to the eco-messiah Al Gore, who is getting rich selling carbon credits.
Reply
km 5:38PM (8/08/2008)
In the end, putting the infrastructure in place is its own reward. A big problem of alternative fuel power is the lack of infrastructure. I wonder how the country would look today if instead of "protecting" our oil interests in the middle east we used those funds to invest into alternative energy producing infrastructure in the US. Regardless of any short-term inefficiency/deficiency, the long term reward would likely be meaningful. How long did it take for Brazil's investment into ethanol to produce returns? Didn't they get started in the 70s?
Reply
Chris M 10:43PM (8/08/2008)
Yes, but Brazil has certain advantages over the US: It is using sugar cane, which produces much higher yields than corn. It has a year-round growing season, with abundant rains which also helps yields. It has more land available to grow sugar cane. And finally, it has a smaller population and lower car ownership as well.
jpm100 11:19PM (8/08/2008)
Energy return is a misunderstood metric.
The energy for corn ethanol production doesn't come just from oil. It comes from the refinery operation where they use power from the grid, coal, natural gas, or other sources as well.
The Energy return metric is used to imply we waste more oil than we save with corn ethanol. This is simply false. Even if it was even or a 'negative' it isn't oil that's being sacrificed.
Ultimately what matters is the cost per mile. Corn ethanol still fails in this department. But one day gas will cost enough, that corn ethanol will be cheaper than gas.
I mean If we could transform coal into gasoline for $1/gallon through some process, the net energy return would likely be zero or negative. Would you refuse to buy it?
Reply
gsolman6 11:34AM (8/09/2008)
Also figure in that the 9 billion gallons of ethanol requires $4.5 billion in subsidies paid for by taxpayers and this starts entering the boondoogle category.
I guess ADM had more pull with the white house/EPA than a fellow republican governor.
Reply